Any winner in a second Brexit referendum should want to make sure his would not be a Pyrrhic victory.

Sir, Simon Kuper writes: “Only voting Remain will end the stress and tedium (the national divide will remain whoever wins)”, “How Remain can win a second referendum” April 20.

Of course the national divide will remain, but the question is whether it will remain the same whoever wins the second referendum? Could the divide not increase? Who could, if winning, be more capable to set a course towards national unity, Brexiters or Remainers?

Kuper opines, “Remain needs to sound as patriotic as Leave. It must present the UK as a European power, not a sorry victim of Europe.”

Yes, of course, but have the Remainer done so? I don’t think so.

A powerful Remainer would have imposed conditions on Europe that would make it easier to convert Brexiters. Of that nothing has been seen. (A powerful Brexiteer would have looked for the same in order to convert Remainers).

A powerful Remainer might have started out for instance by questioning Michel Barnier as the European negotiator, as there were indications of him having conflicts of interest. (A powerful Brexiteer should have had to do so too).

A powerful Remainer would have asked Europe for a clear answer on how they intend to solve the problem with having assigned a 0% risk weight to all Eurozone sovereign that take on debt in a currency that de facto is not their own domestic (printable) one. I mean a powerful Remainer would not risk standing their with egg on his face having won the second referendum and then having nothing to remain in. (A powerful Brexiteer might not really have had to do so).

Kuper also opines “In a second referendum, Remainers can borrow the anti-elitist language of Leave to inveigh against privileged Brexiters.” 

Yes, that could help the Remainers to win the referendum, but that would also increase the chances of the divisions growing and they having won a Pyrrhic victory.

Sir, at the end of the day Britain’s problem is that the Brexit vs. Remain debate was taken over way too much by those wanting to profit on it by it turning it into a battle between good and evil. If you do not possess a sufficient strong elite capable of stopping such nonsense, you will pay the consequences, 

Sir, when thinking about what second referendum result would have the best possibilities over to regain some workable unit, each day that passes, makes me feel closer to have to give, a quite reluctant, “Brexit” response to that.

PS. London’s West End needs urgently an Oklahoma revival adapted to Britain. “The Brexiters and Remainers should be friends”

@PerKurowski

Way too many have kept busier defeating Brexit than saving Britain, come what may.

Sir, Philip Stafford writes “City executives describe the EU’s no-deal plans as a ‘nakedly political’ grab for London’s business” “Tail risk” April 9.

Alex Barker in “Barnier vs the Brits” FT already in November 2011, wrote about the fears of Sir Mervin King held about that some Brussels reforms would reshape a vital British industry, banking, to the benefit of eurozone rivals. 

Specifically Barker mentioned: “Underlying the alarm in London is a more visceral fear: that Mr Barnier’s backers on the mainland are using this regulatory marathon to sap London’s strength as Europe’s pre-eminent financial centre.”

And that was when Michel Barnier was only the “European internal market commissioner – a perch giving him oversight of the continent’s financial industry. Arguably, no European Union job is of more consequence for the UK.”

Well yes, there was. Now Michel Barnier, since December 2016, is the European Chief Negotiator for the United Kingdom Exiting the European Union, a job with even more consequence for the UK.

Given the previous rough relationship between Britain and Monsieur Barnier, one could have made a very well argued case that his appointment served no one well. And I am sure many EU nations would have understood that.

As a friend of Britain, I have one way or other argued the previous on several occasions, but with no luck. I believe that is because way too many were kept too interested in just defeating Brexit and so, to try for a better Brexit, did not fit their plans.

https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2017/03/is-michel-barnier-really-sure-about.html

https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2017/07/european-citizens-must-solve-brexit.html

https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2017/07/should-not-mr-michel-barnier-negotiator.html

https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2018/04/what-kind-of-tariffs-is-protectionist.html

@PerKurowski

If Brexit ends in tears, Theresa May is clearly not the only one that should be blamed and not be forgiven.

Sir, Martin Wolf writes that Theresa May needed to begin Brexit negotiations “from the interests of the country. She has failed to do so… If the result is no deal, Mrs May could not be forgiven. “May is set on taking a hideous gamble” March 22.

Yes, for an outsider like me, Theresa May seems indeed to have managed very badly Brexit negotiations. But just as Lubomir Zaoralek the minister of foreign affairs of the Czech Republic wrote July 2016 in FT “Europe’s institutions must share the blame for Brexit”, the EU Brexit negotiators, like Michel Barnier, cannot be said to have no blame in any failure. 

And also, again for an outsider like me, I have seen little to nothing of all those Remainers giving, “from the interests of the country”, any constructive advice or cooperation in order to reach a more satisfactory solution. As I see it, the Brexit-failure political profiteers, as well as those eager to enhance their reputation by being able to point out “I told you so”, have refused to cooperate or to give any constructive advice, and so all they should also share the blame of a failure… and “not be forgiven.”

As far as I know a Hard Remain option that could have alleviated some of the Brexiters’ main justified concerns was never developed.

PS. A question: If because of the insane 0% risk weighting of their sovereigns the Eurozone breaks up, and drags down EU with it, would Britain be better off having Brexited or having remained in EU? 

@PerKurowski

Brexit is sure a bad idea, but how can you be sure Remain is not even a worse one?

Sir, Alex Barker and Jim Brunsden quote Catherine Barnard, a professor of EU law at Cambridge university: “Never before has a treaty been constructed of this kind,” “The EU is a unique organization. What the Brexit process has revealed is just how deep the integration is in reality.” “Accord leaves Britain bound to Brussels” November 16.

On the first, indeed, to for instance adopt a Euro in order to push forward a union instead of letting a union produce a common currency, is a truly strange way to construct a union.

But, on the second “how deep the integration is in reality” I beg to differ. Having a member like Greece walk the plank, especially as EU authorities were most to blame for its problems, is not the doings of a real deep union.

Sir, let me refer to a speech delivered by Mario Draghi, President of the ECB, at the Frankfurt European Banking Congress, given today, “The outlook for the euro area economy”. 

It concluded with: “I want to emphasize how completing Economic and Monetary Union has become more urgent over time not less urgent – and not only for the economic reasoning that has always underpinned my remarks, but also to preserve our European construction.”

I agree, because as is, Italy will not walk the plank as Greece did, and that could bring on the end of the euro, as we now know it, which could bring an end to the European Union, as we know now it, or, clearer yet, as we perhaps really don’t know it.

Sir, whether Brexit or Remain supporters, does not Britain (and all other UE members) have the right to know what “completing Economic and Monetary Union” to “preserve EU our European construction”, which Draghi urges really entails?

Draghi also mentioned “as urgent as the first steps were in euro area crisis management seven years ago”, “The completion of the banking union in all its dimensions, including risk reduction, and the start of the capital markets union through implementing all ongoing initiatives by 2019”

Sir, does not Britain, a nation where banking means so much, have the right to know exactly what that entails so that it banks are not castrated in the process?It is not just me a foreigner asking. Let me remind you that seven years ago, Alex Barker in [Mr. Brexit Negotiator] “Barnier vs. the Brits” wrote about the fears of Sir Mervin King that Brussels reforms would reshape a vital British industry, banking, to the benefit of eurozone rivals.

Draghi also said: “Household net worth remains at solid levels on the back of rising house prices and is adding to continued consumption growth.” 

That is an untrue statement. A much truer one would be: “Household net worth remains very fragile since it rides almost exclusively on rising house prices, as a consequence of the distortion produced by too much and too favorable financing being offered for the purchase of houses. A distortion that helped to anticipate much of the consumption we have seen, but that will come back and hurt house owners, whether by house prices falling, or hurt everyone, by inflation eroding our real consumption power.

Sir, when that happens, and the crisis needs to be managed so as to impede the destruction of all social cohesion, would you prefer to do that on a national level, instead of on the level of a union in which very few know how to sing its anthem?

Sir, I’m no one to give a recommendation but, should not the Brexit vs. Remain discussions refer more fundamentally to the future of Britain and of EU, instead of being turned into another profitable venture for some opportunistic polarization profiteers?

Should not FT inform its readers, in a much more balanced way, of all challenges that lay ahead, not only those of a Brexit but also those of a Remain?

A long time friend and admirer of Britain 

@PerKurowski

In the case of Greece EU violated a fundamental principle of a Union... solidarity.

Sir, Jem Eskenazi in his letter writes about EU’s “fundamental principle of integrating a fractured continent into a peaceful whole”“EU is right to protect its fundamental principles” September 21.

I agree but EU authorities have egregiously violated that principle in the case of Greece. 

Given Greece’s historical trajectory as a debtor country, for purposes of the capital requirements for banks, it could perhaps have been assigned a 200% risk weight. Instead some of EU’s head-honchos, I have no names, there usually are no names behind these decisions, decided to risk weigh Greece 0%. 

That, in very simple terms, meant that European banks did not need to hold one single euro in capital when lending to the sovereign of Greece. So of course European banks could not resist the temptations of lending massively to Greece, and of course the Greek government did not have the strength to resist such offers, and so of course it all ended up in a tragic over-indebtedness.

But did EU recognize its role creating this mess and has really paid up for its mistake? No! So now all newborn Greeks will have to grow up in a land burden by a monstrous mortgage, more than € 30.000 for each one of them,unless they decide to emigrate. That is no way to treat a member of a union.

Neither have EU authorities, like the European Commission, dedicated itself sufficiently to solve the immense challenges the euro poses, busying themselves instead with so many other minutia and issues that are none of their business.

There will soon be 20 years since the euro was adopted, and at that time I wrote an Op-ed titled “Burning the bridges in Europe” that should give me some rights to opine. 

I do not believe EU authorities, like the European Commission, has dedicated itself sufficiently to solve the challenges posed by the euro and which, if left unresolved, could lead to a tragic break up of EU, with immense consequences to the world. I have seen it though engaging in minutia, like negotiating entry fees for tourists to Romanian monasteries, and which has only lead me to think about a Banana Union. 

Sir, I would not have voted for Brexit but now I am not really sure. Lately, some of the discussions remind me of passengers in a lifeboat trying to negotiate their future with the captain of the Titanic.

PS. I forgot to mention the fact that the euro is not a real domestic currency for any eurozone nation, which makes the 0% risk weight even harder to explain.

PS. Again, even with a hard Brexit, if the euro challenges are kept unresolved, Britain might end up having left EU in the nick of time

@PerKurowski

If EU does not face and solve the challenges posed by the euro, it will break down.

Sir, you write, “Joining the euro meant losing the ability to depreciate its currency — long Italy’s safety valve when its competitiveness failed to keep pace with its neighbours.” “Italy needs real economic plans, not empty slogans” September 6.

On the eve of the euro in an Op-Ed I wrote, “Exchange rates, while not perfect, are escape valves. By eliminating this valve, European countries must make their economic adjustments in real terms. This makes these adjustments much more explosive.”

And that EU authorities must have known was the main challenge the euro posed. And of course it is not only about Italy. Without the euro the Deutsche Mark would have revalued and Germany would not have its current trade surplus.

But what have the European authorities done to face up to that challenge? Basically nothing, just empty slogans. Instead EC have even dared to keep busy with helping to solve cases like persuading church authorities to establish non-discriminatory entry fees for the monasteries... that's acting like a Banana Union.

But, as if that was not enough they also went and risk weighted the capital requirements for banks for all EU sovereigns at 0%, which means that market interest signals on sovereign debt have been artificially lowered, and so that EU banks can easier finance any disequilibria... and that even though all Eurozone sovereigns denominated their debt in a currency that is not really their domestic (printable) one.

Sir, irresponsible EU authorities are dooming that beautiful dream of the European Union, to turn into a real nightmare… and I am truly surprised by how little that fact has played out in all the discussions on Brexit.

PS. Though Greece should perhaps have been risk-weighted 200%, EU authorities assigned it 0%. As a consequence, Greece took on too much debt; and EU ignored its responsibility for it. Now each newborn Greek carries a huge mortgage. Is that how a Union should behave? I don’t think so.

PS. I first read about that monastery fees issue in a brochure that the then European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, Michel Barnier, handed out in June 2011 during a conference in Washington at the Brookings Institute.

PS. On a different topic: The following, from a transcript, is a question I made during that conference, and Mr. Barnier's answer.

"MR. KEROVSKY: Yes, my name is Pere Kerovsky. Europe is there -- is what it is because of a lot of willingness to take risks, and in fact partisan songs often include “God make us daring,” and Pope John Paul II asked us to fish in deep waters, not settle for the (inaudible). But the last 20 years we have had bank regulations that are based on perceived risk and that have introduced a risk adverseness into the system, obviously a crisis that detonated in triple A-rated land and sovereign is not a crisis because of excessive risk taking but because of excessive adverseness of risk. You still are going the same route. Does this mean, really, that Europe has called it quits? Has capitulated and doesn’t want to really go forward because they’re giving up their willingness to take the risks needed? 

MR. BARNIER: I was amused by your first reference to fishing in deep water. I was a fisher’s minister (laughter), so I’m very interested in that. There’s less and less fish in deep waters, you know that. Watch out. 

Don’t count on me to say it’s business as usual. It’s not possible. Perhaps it is what certain bankers wish or -- but it’s no longer possible for citizens. We are not there to prevent risk-taking. We’re there to prevent excessive risk-taking. The payers are not the ones who are taking risk; it’s the taxpayers. When I see how compensations and bonuses have been calculated with riskier and riskier systems since the riskier the more paid you were, I think it’s one of the reasons of the crisis, and you know it. Who paid in the end? Taxpayers here and elsewhere. But we’re not there to prevent risk-taking. Everybody has to assume the risk responsibilities and pay the price, and we have to know who is doing what. 

I don’t see how a general system, which is not there yet, in food transparency would prevent risk-taking, but I think we should take risk, and I take risk in my planning, but those who take risks must be ready to accept that it is well known and then assume the responsibility.” 

Sir, I hope you understand by now how far Michel Barnier was from understanding the risk of excessive regulatory risk aversion, that which caused the 2007-08 crisis explosion, because of especially excessive exposures by banks, against especially little capital, to what was perceived or decreed as especially safe.

@PerKurowski

It behooves EU technocrats to find out what Europeans want and do not want to come out of Brexit.

Sir, Karin Kneissl, even by daring to explain some historical reasons for why Britain might not really belong in EU, makes a firm and clear call, to all the parties directly involved in the Brexit negotiations, to come back to their common senses. “A pragmatic approach to Brexit will pay off for both sides” August 10.

Hopefully it will give those many in Britain (including some in FT) who seem to want Brexit to fail, big, so that they can say their “We told you so”, some reason to recapacitate. Of course many of them, just like many Trump enemies in the US, are beyond the point where they would be able to do so.

If Karin Kneissl wants to help even more she should give Mr. Negotiator Barnier a call, and remind him that it behooves him, and all other EU technocrats, to find out what Europeans want and do not want to come out of Brexit. That this has not been done is sincerely amazing and only points to way too much besserwisser arrogance playing a role.

And Sir, if Brexit fails big, it is not certain at all that the loudest protesters would be British. Among Europeans, Britain counts with much more sympathy than what all commissioners, whose egos were hurt with Brexit, think it has. A French finding it harder to visit London is just as likely to be upset than a Brit finding it harder to visit Paris… perhaps even more “Mon Dieu, que dirait de Gaulle?”

@PerKurowski

What kind of tariffs is protectionist Michel Barnier thinking of imposing on banking and financial services provided by the City of London to Europeans?

Sir, Mehreen Khan’s, Jim Brunsden’s and Sofia George Parker’s write thatin reference to that “the EU would have more to lose from cutting off the City of London than Britain would” Michel Barnier said: “This is not what we hear from market participants, and it is not the analysis that we have made ourselves.”“Barnier dismisses UK hopes of special market access for London after Brexit” April 27.

Sir, I must confess that Michel Barnier does not qualify as my favorite EU Brussels technocrat, but with this he certainly proves himself to be a protectionist, completely in the hands of the European financial intermediaries (the aluminum and steel producers) and with little consideration to all those European consumers of financial services that might prefer using the services and the legal framework provided by the City.

What kind of tariffs is Barnier thinking of imposing on banking and financial services? Has Michel Barnier really been authorized to impose on behalf of all the European Unions his will on all Brexit negotiations?

Sincerely, I do not think Barnier has thought this thru. He might be setting off a real European capital flight to London. 

@PerKurowski

In not listening sufficiently to the European people, which includes the British, resides great risks for the two technocrats negotiating Brexit

Sir I refer to George Parker and Alex Barker discussing Michel Barnier and David Davis, “Meet the Brexit negotiators” March 17.

For me the best of the Winter Olympics 2018 was seeing Sofia Goggia singing her Italian national anthem with such an enthusiasm. I am sure Europe has not been able to remotely capture the hearts of Europeans in such a way; and the reason for that must foremost be the technocratic haughtiness of Brussels.

I have not the faintest idea if it rests on some real event, it most probably doesn’t, but the most powerful moment depicted in “The darkest hour”, was when Churchill journeyed the London Underground to hear the voice of regular people in the subway.

And that is what I have a feeling neither Davis nor Barnett have done enough of. Whatever the result of Brexit, they might be in for a great surprise, because, much more than arteries and veins are at stake for Europe, including Britain, it is the heart that has to be nurtured and cared for.

What if for instance to Sofia Goggia the relation Italy-Britain is much more important than the relation Italy-EU-Britain?

I have no doubt those who voted for Brexit really wanted more out of Brussels than out of Europe... because that I can understand.

Sir, you don’t have to go underground and travel subways to know what people might want. Some well designed, not biased, public opinion research on the wished and not wished for outcomes of Brexit, in all countries involved, would be the minimum I would have required before any first Brexit meeting.

PS. Just in case you are curious, the worst for me of the Winter Olympics 2018, was having to suffer with Egvenia Medvedeva when not winning her gold.

@PerKurowski

Risk weighted capital requirements for banks guarantee banks will have the least capital when the worst crises occur

Sir, Jim Brunsden and Cat Rutter Pooley write that Mario Draghi “said that speedy work was needed to conclude talks on an overhaul of bank rules that had been under discussion for more than a year. The reforms would introduce the latest international standards aimed at making the financial system more resilient to crises”, “Draghi warns banks of Brexit ‘frictions’” February 6.

Sir, again, for the umpteenth time, the price of being “More resilient to crises” in the way current regulators propose, is only to be more exposed when crises happen? This is because the risk weighted capital requirements for banks that still, quite surrealistically, form part of regulations, by giving banks incentives to stay away from what is perceived as risky, might reduce the number of crisis, but that at the price of banks having especially little capital, right when the worst crises happen, namely those that result from something ex ante perceived, decreed or concocter as very safe turn out ex post to be very risky.

Sir, again, for the umpteenth time, your banking systems are in hands of regulators who cannot answer: “Why do you want banks to hold more capital against what’s been made innocous when perceived as risky, than against what’s dangerous because it’s perceived as safe? Does this not set the world up for slow growth and too-big-to-manage crises?”

But, then again, “Without fear and without favour” FT does not dare ask regulators those questions either.

PS. Brunsden and Cat Rutter Pooley also write that “Michel Barnier, EU chief negotiator visiting London, that “the time has come” for Britain to make a choice about what kind of future relationship it wants.” Does Barnier, know what future relation the EU wants with Britain after Brexit, or is it that he thinks he speaks for all Europe?

http://perkurowski.blogspot.com/2016/04/here-are-17-reasons-for-why-i-believe.html

@PerKurowski

Britain, don’t let all your hard and well-earned goodwill in Europe go to waste with dumb Brexit negotiations

Sir, Josef Joffe describes well the kind of goodwill Britain has in Europe. That goodwill is being horribly wasted in the Brexit proceedings, among other by those Remainders that want to get Brexit failures, in order to argue their petty “I told you so” “Brexit Britain has displaced Germany as the land of dreamers” August 16.

Had I been a citizen of Britain wanting decent Brexit negotiations, or one wanting to remain in EU, I would have reached out to all the millions of Josef Josses in Europe with the message of: “The Brexit vote indicates not all is well in EU, what can we do, and how can you help us to convince our fellow country men of not leaving?”

And if that had not opened up new roads, then my minimum minimorum plea would be: “Europeans, make sure your relations with Britain are mot harmed more than necessary by means of leaving Brexit negotiations, unsupervised, in the hands of EU-technocrats who have suffered a love spat or want to show off as though macho negotiators.

@PerKurowski

Brexit should be an affair between Europeans, not between some EU technocrats resenting a love spat.

Sir, I refer to Robert Shrimsley’s ironizing “Your country needs you: Brexit’s patriot act” July 15. There he writes: “Fox has said some journalists would rather see Britain fail than Brexit succeed”.

Well so do I! When I read so many opinions in FT stating categorically that Britain EU has much more to lose from Brexit than EU without acknowledging EU’s huge and delicate Brexit problems; when I see no one trying to capture the support of Britain that undoubtedly exists among Europeans; when I see no one wanting to go out and ask what kind of punishment they want the not so popular, the not elected by vote executioner Barnier to enforce on Britain, I do feel that most of you have an existential necessity of the Brexit affair turning out real bad for your country… or a shameful lack of willingness to defend what is yours, meaning not only Britain but also Britain’s future relation with Europe.

Can you imagine Britain during World War II communicating solely with the Vichy government of France and not reaching out to La Résistance?

The Brexit morning after do you think Europeans want to see Britain gone for good? I doubt that, Britain is much more part of the glue that holds EU together than you seem to want to know.

PS. Just yesterday https://teawithft.blogspot.com/2017/07/european-citizens-must-solve-brexit.html

Per Kurowski

A Venezuelan but also a Polish citizen, and therefore a European who is strongly in favor of Britain… though I admit the last could just be the result of not being up to date.

@PerKurowski

European citizens must solve the Brexit affair, not EU technocrats with their egos hurt by that love spat

Sir, let me address some of Martin Wolf specific opinions expressed in “Britain is incapable of managing Brexit and calamity will follow” July 14.

“Michel Barnier, the EU’s negotiator, patiently explains, as if to inattentive children, that ‘the clock is ticking’.” Does Wolf really think that Michel Barnier has been authorized by EU, and especially by the Europeans, to impatiently allow the clock on Brexit negotiations to run out? If Barnier does that, on his own, to show off his toughness, they will run him out.

“Brexiters fail to understand the weakness of the UK’s hand” “Does that mean that EU understands their hand to be strong?

“Damage to access to the EU market would, for example, be far worse for the UK than vice versa, because the EU’s economy is some five times bigger than Britain’s.” What? I can’t believe Wolf says this. Whatever damage might in fact result, has very little to do with the size of the economy. A larger economy, on a per capita basis, could be just as sensitive.

“The EU is a creature of law. Members would view a [no deal] violation of UK obligations as heinous.” What members, the not so popular EU technocrats?

“The UK government is stuck between a rock and a hard place.” Does Wolf really think the governments in EU are feeling comfortable? They have their own need of votes.

“Another referendum would be dynamite, further aggravating the deep splits over the European issue” Does that not depend partly on the results of the referendum?

“Whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad. So it now is over Brexit”

There I agree. Because I wonder why Martin Wolf, and most other influential Brexiteers and Remainers, British foremost, supposedly, are not out there marketing the need for a very amicable Brexit, among all those Europeans that might wish the same, and who also the last thing they need, is for additional complications in their already hard as it is life.

PS. Did you not see how Trump and Macron got along well even with Trump’s Paris agreement exit?

Per Kurowski

I am besides a Venezuelan, also a Polish, and therefore a European citizen.

@PerKurowski

Should not Mr. Michel Barnier, The Negotiator, ask EU’s citizens how they want Britain to be treated during its Brexit?

Sir, I refer to Alex Barker’s report on “a tough speech on future relations” in which Michel Barnier opined that “the consequences of leaving the union had not been “fully understood across the Channel” and that Britain has yet to “face the facts” on the negative consequences of Brexit “EU top negotiator warns Britain to ‘face the facts’ on Brexit” July 7.

And I ask the question posed in the title because, for instance when in 2013 acting as the European Union Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, and wanting to impose his bank regulatory wills on the US, I perceived him like wanting to play a tough guy, “barnstorming the U.S.”, and this can have unexpected and unwelcomed consequences for both sides of the Channel.

What would Barnier do if on a scale of 1 to ten, from gentle to firm, the Europeans voted to treat Britain with a 2? Would he be capable to deliver?

Sir, again, I also detect a clear masochistic strain in all those Remainers who seem to want Britain to be severely mistreated, just in order to tell the Brexiters “See, we told you so!”

Britain, you should not sell yourself short. You have many many friends over the channel and who want to remain close friends. 

@PerKurowski

Brexit should not be a humiliating capitulation process, so as to fit the remainders’ wish to say, “I told you so!”

Sir, Carl Bildt writes “The essential and unavoidable fact is that Britain will not be in the room when EU summits are called on all the different issues that are certain to emerge in these increasingly uncertain times… For all its public ambivalence, there is little doubt that on the inside Britain has been very powerful in shaping the evolution of the EU... Many have seen the UK as a necessary counterweight to other countries keen on a more closed approach, both political and economic” “Europe’s political landscape starts to shift” June 20.

Absolutely! And this is a fact that Britain should make abundantly clear, reaching out to its so many European friends, bypassing completely those Brussels technocrats that have had their weak egos hurt, because of the Brexit rejection.

Instead, many of your columnists have been arguing for a sort of humiliating Versailles type capitulation treaty, most of them in order to be able to tell their readers “I told you so!” Well, shame on them!

What would I do if a British citizen? First I would carry out an opinion poll in all EU countries asking their citizens whether they want Britain to be castigated for leaving EU, or whether they prefer EU to live as closely and friendly as possible with Britain after Brexit.

Then, with those results in hands, which I am sure would favor the second option, I would ask whether they would like to leave the Brexit negotiations on behalf of EU, in the hands of Michel Barnier, someone who has clearly a tendency to want to show off as a strong man, as a macho man.

Sir, and you know this is not the first time I so opine… but of course, since I am censored by FT, just like I was censored in my Venezuela, I must be silenced.

@PerKurowski

Should Brexit be negotiated between some Brussels divorce lawyers blithely ignoring what the divorcees might want?

Sir, I refer to the so many Brexit withdrawal anxieties expressed, in this case to Martin Wolf’s “Brexiters must lose if Brexit is to succeed” March 29.

I ask: Could EU technocrats negotiate Brexit ignoring the will of EU citizens as to what Brexit should mean? In many ways it seems to me like some Brussels attorneys will be discussing the divorce papers without even consulting the divorcing parties.

I believe in EU, but I also believe EU is in serious troubles (not the least because of those bank regulations that doom its economies to stall and fall).

So, in the same vein that much is spoken about what Brexit implies for Britain, too little really has been discussed on what Brexit really means to EU.

Here Wolf correctly writes: “The departure of the UK is also a tragedy for Europe. The UK has long been the standard-bearer for liberal economics and democratic politics… the effect of a brutal divorce on the EU would also be large.” But Wolf minimizes that by holding that “Britain would be the bigger loser, [so] UK must make concessions to ensure a harmonious and co-operative relationship in future.

I firmly believe Britain has in much been the glue that has held EU together. Therefore, if Britain, before or while negotiating Brexit, I would reach out to all Europeans with a message like:

“Our people have decided to part with EU, not because we dislike EU citizens, or the idea of EU, but in much because of the same reasons so many of you are not satisfied with EU. What do you want to see at the end of these Brexit negotiations? While negotiating should we also not engage in some type of marriage counseling? Who knows perhaps we find something that could make us all live better and happier in or outside EU. Like perhaps forcing those technocrats in Brussels to use a CPAP so that they snore less. One fact though is that Britain cannot move to Australia, and so no matter what we do we will still be neighbors. Would really you and us want to see grumpy faces over the fence all day long?”

Sir, for reasons I have explained before I think that perhaps it is not wise for EU to have a Michel Barnier to negotiate Brexit on its behalf, but I am also weary of those on your side and who might unwittingly want Britain to lose substantially with Brexit, because of an existential need to argue “See I told you so!”

@PerKurowski

Is Michel Barnier really sure about what mandate the people in remaining EU have given him to negotiate Brexit?

Sir, Michel Barnier writes “Severe disruption to air transport and long queues at the Channel port of Dover are just some of the many examples of the negative consequences of failing to reach a deal.” “Brussels will be transparent in Brexit negotiations” March 26.

Really? Are those really necessary consequences? Do Michel Barnier’s words really reflect what the citizens of the remaining EU feel about Brexit? Has he really been sufficiently authorized to negotiate? At what moment can the rest intervene if they don’t like where it’s all heading? 

I ask because, as I have opined before, the truth is that EU has much more to lose from Brexit than Britain. Britain signified the most important glue to hold together such a diverse bunch of individualities of countries. In fact, without naming them, I know there are EU countries that harbor much more sympathies towards Britain than towards most of their associates. 

Some years ago, I believe 2011, at the Brooking Institute in Washington, I heard the then EU’ Internal Market Commissioner Barnier quite aggressively lecture the US to do its part since WE "EU regulators will not accept a global regulatory race to the bottom"… When Barnier also made the point in his speech, also included in his handed out cv, that he was quite proficient in English, I clearly remember having thought (unfairly perhaps)… this guy has some sort of ego problem.

Of course, I could be totally wrong, I don’t know Mr Barnier, he could in fact be equanimity and friendliness impersonated. But, since in my TeaWithFT blog I also found having commented on an article by Alex Barker titled “Barnier vs the Brits”, November 9, I hope for the good of all parties, that the negotiations of Brexit does not take place in a coliseum with some gladiators just wanting to show off how strong they are.

PS. It was at that same Brooking conference that I was presented with a brochure in which the European Commission claimed as a great success that: “A French citizen complained about discriminatory entry fees for tourists to Romanian monasteries. The ticket price for non-Romanians was twice as high as that for Romanian citizens. As this policy was contrary to EU principles, the Romanian SOLVIT centre persuaded the church authorities to establish non-discriminatory entry fees for the monasteries. Solved within 9 weeks.”

Though I proudly carry a Polish passport, I have not really lived within the EU… and so I did not know what to think of it all. But is this is what EU is about, then Brexit could seem quite reasonable.

@PerKurowski

If I was a young unemployed European I would ask Michel Barnier to parade down European avenues wearing a cone of shame.

Sir, I refer to Alex Barker’s and Phillip Stafford’s “Six ways Europe’s financial sector is meant to mend its ways” April 16.

I am not impressed. Because in Europe, the regulators still allows a bank to hold much less capital (equity) if it lends to “the infallible” meaning sovereigns, real estate or AAAristocracy, than when lending to the “risky” meaning medium and small businesses, entrepreneurs and start-ups.

And so in Europe, regulators seem yet not have been able to understand this allows banks to earn much higher risk adjusted returns on equity when lending to “the infallible” than when lending to “the risky”.

And so in Europe, regulators still distort the allocation of credit to the real economy; that distortion that created the crisis, too much lending to Greece, real estate in Spain, AAA rated securities; that distortion that causes too little lending, in competitive terms, to those who could create the next generation of decent European jobs. 

And so, as I see it, Europe has not even started to mend its ways

If I was a young unemployed European I would ask Michel Barnier and his Basel Committee and Financial Stability Board colleagues to parade down European avenues wearing dunce caps – meaning cones of shame.

FT, I just can’t believe you believe we need regulators, like Michel Barnier, to save us from Libor scandals

On September 3 you wrote “Barnier’s revolution”, in which you held that Brussels is right to end self-regulations”, like in the case of setting the Libor benchmarks.

Please read carefully your own reporters “Court papers reveal Libor broker called banks ‘sheep’” September 26, and tell us: Now that the market knows what happened, what good can come from having a regulator, perhaps Mr. Michel Barnier himself, overseeing the setting of Libor?

If banks had self-regulated, current extreme high bank leverages would never existed. Basel Committee´s regulations enabled these.

Sir, in “Barnier’s revolution”, September 23, you write that “Brussels is right to end self-regulation” in this case of benchmarks, like the Libor. But we should forget that having other selves regulating, does not guarantee by a long shot better results.

For instance, if the banks had been self-regulating, instead of falling in the hands of the Basel Committee the current financial crisis would not have happened. I say this because there is no imaginable way banks would allow each other to hold capital in accordance to ex ante perceived risks, since they would all have been asking each other… “What if those ex ante perceptions, ex post turn out wrong?”

For instance can you imagine European banks with 30 to 50 times to 1 debt equity ratios, if there had not been a regulator who vouching for these enabled it all?

And in the case such as the Libor, I would still believe that self-regulation which explicitly accepts responsibility is still the best way to go. The quotes of Libor which created the scandal were quotes lower than the real Libor, which implied that the interest rates banks could charge their borrowers were lower than what they should be, and so any bank, sufficiently aware now of what shenanigans were going on, would most certainly raise all hell if that was repeated.

And besides, since some regulators did not mind at all low Libor quotes, since these inspired tranquility, one should also be highly suspicious of what other types of selves can be present in non-self-regulation.

God save us from regulator hubris!